Towers Of Lies

So you dont even need to know how it was built for you to know weather or not the damage was enough to compromise the structural integrity ?

Do you? Just curious, because you seem to be making the opposite assumption that I am. The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret
explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic.

Oh , you`re really losing grip of your stance -V- , i thought you knew what you were talking about but to just keep saying childish things like this
in response to a decent question just goes to show that you do not have a clue.

And alot of people heard the explosions , but because Fox news and CNN arent telling you there was explosions , you dont beleive there was explosions
........ but Fox and CNN tell you Bin laden is behind it all , and you lap it up.

Originally posted by RockLobster
Oh , you`re really losing grip of your stance -V- , i thought you knew what you were talking about but to just keep saying childish things like this
in response to a decent question just goes to show that you do not have a clue.

And alot of people heard the explosions , but because Fox news and CNN arent telling you there was explosions , you dont beleive there was explosions
........ but Fox and CNN tell you Bin laden is behind it all , and you lap it up.

Baaaaaaa.

edit on 4-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Once again with the assumptions. Do you ever stop making assumptions? You make them about that day, you make them about me. Where does it end?

- " The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they
even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic. " -

- " The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they
even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic. " -

Isnt that an assumption ?

Since I've watched the video of WTC 7 collapsing with sound. I can verify that there were no explosive sounds that one hears in literally every
single video of a demolition. I'm not assuming that I didn't hear them. I really didn't hear them.

- " The only difference is that mine doesn't require secret explosives to be somehow planted in the building and detonated with no one knowing they
even went off. These quiet explosives are like magic. " -

Isnt that an assumption ?

Since I've watched the video of WTC 7 collapsing with sound. I can verify that there were no explosive sounds that one hears in literally every single
video of a demolition. I'm not assuming that I didn't hear them. I really didn't hear them.

So what did you hear then ? the explosion of concrete hitting steel ?

C`mon -V- , you can do better than that.

What about the people who were there who heard explosions before and during the collapse ?

Are you saying they are liars ?

EDIT : And actually , you were assuming that i beleive secret silent explosives were used .

Why doesnt it count ? ................. because you say so ? Do you realize how petulant you are being ?

“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I
know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it
would have been one side of the building.” - Barry Jennings

Now , about this - the explosion sounds were the sounds of rubble - , dribble , Is this your new stance ? so that anyone who claims there was
explosions during the collapse of the towers has no arguement ?

EDIT : i must say , i`m very surprised at the amount of stars your recent posts have received , especially when you are just talking utter
cack.

Why doesnt it count ? ................. because you say so ? Do you realize how petulant you are being ?

“I’m just confused about one thing, and one thing only– why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I’m very confused about that. I
know what I heard– I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I’m an old boiler guy– if it was a fuel-oil tank, it
would have been one side of the building.” - Barry Jennings

Now , about this - the explosion sounds were the sounds of rubble - , dribble , Is this your new stance ? so that anyone who claims there was
explosions during the collapse of the towers has no arguement ?

EDIT : i must say , i`m very surprised at the amount of stars your recent posts have received , especially when you are just talking utter
cack.

edit on 4-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)

Yeah, that one person who agrees with me is such a riot. You're just like every other poster who finds out about 9/11, doesn't research anything
thoroughly, only watching the conspiracy theorist propaganda, and then comes on here and blabs on about how "I don't understand how this could
happen. This doesn't make sense to me. Explosions, pull it, evil super-government."

I'm done with it for now. I'm going to take another short hiatus from this site to catch up on my schoolwork. Toodles.

You didn't answer my question at all. Why do you keep using your model in your arguments if it proves nothing?

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend the difference between evidence and proof.

Just because there is evidence does not necessarily mean it is sufficient to qualify as proof. Where is the counter evidence of a model that can
completely collapse?

psik

But you just said your model doesn't stand as evidence of the towers being unable to collapse! You're making no sense at all.

Great demonstration of intellect you have there.

You assume that evidence must be PROOF. You can't cope with a complicated reality that contains degrees of uncertainty. You can't accept that
evidence must be evaluated with intelligence and logic. But I suppose in this case the physics would have to be understood to evaluate the evidence.
Like comprehending the square cube law.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But all you can do is claim that the buckling difference would matter in a test versus my paper loops. You have NO EVIDENCE. But buildings are not
constructed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. Where is a physical model that can completely collapse?

psik

If you're so eager to build such a model, I just told you how to do it. use columns instead of paper loops that are wider than their height.

I have carefully explained why your model cannot exhibit the behavior you seem to expect of it. So will you please stop posting about it now that you
concede that it constitutes "NO EVIDENCE"?, or will your argument remain "AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE"?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But all you can do is claim that the buckling difference would matter in a test versus my paper loops. You have NO EVIDENCE. But buildings are not
constructed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. Where is a physical model that can completely collapse?

psik

If you're so eager to build such a model, I just told you how to do it. use columns instead of paper loops that are wider than their height.

I am not eager to build such a model. I do not think it is possible. So if it is I want to see it. That is supposedly what happened to the north
tower. The top destroying everything below from above by falling on it even though what was below had to be strong enough to support the static load.
And it would not have been designed to be AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

I had my small wedding reception at Windows of the World in 1977. We were the first 'public' group to use the restaurant.
The building(s) were very empty.

Everyone wanted to rent space on the top floors (why else be in a sky scrapper with a panoramic view?) so the bottom floors have almost always stayed
unoccupied.

And by the mid 1990's a lot of offices were leaving Manhattan due to the very high rent and were sashaying over to Jersey leaving the towers even more
empty.

It is my understanding the two towers were roughly 50-70% vacant at the time of this incident. Regardless if they were 50 or 70 percent empty, that's
still a lot of overhead for Silverstein (lights, window washing, elevator maintenance etc) to maintain without revenue/rent.
Especially seeing he was facing millions of dollars in restoration cost---- in order to be in compliance with the dangerous asbestos-removal in the
buildings.

My personal opinion is Silverstein looks, acts and sounds very shady and I don't have a single doubt that he valued money over people.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.